The following is a description of a process that I believe could bypass the current dead lock in peace negotiations. Today Ukraine is understandably against giving up territory for which it’s soldiers have died and, from their perspective, so is Russia.
picture credit: Geo Political Futures
On 11 May 2014 referendums took place under the Russian controlled Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics . They asked in essence, whether the population preferred to be Russian or Ukrainian. This initially appears fair towards the citizens as many of whom speak Russian. However, the results were clearly unrepresentative as by then large numbers of loyal Ukrainian’s had fled! The world was given a clear demonstration of how dictators use democracy when and how it suits them.
So, my suggestion is to take another look at this idea of asking the people of these regions the same question, but only after allowing displaced Ukrainian citizens to return safely to their homes and after peace has been declared and sustained. Such a process would have to be supervised by a neutral international organisation such as the United Nations.
This resettlement process should be given an extended period for the social, economic and political ‘dust to settle’; say five years. These parts of Ukraine would remain a demilitarised zone between Russia and Ukraine pending an agreed peace plan for the future. It is wise to acknowledge that Ukraine acts as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. This has so far kept the two sides apart and long may it be so.
But presently neither Ukraine nor Russia can agree on the border and negotiations involving the United States are deadlocked. In such a case, consulting the people of those disputed regions must be the fairest way to decide.
I would hope that Russia and Ukraine could invite soldiers in a peacekeeping role from non-European and non-NATO countries. The fear of NATO boots so close to Russia is in fairness to Russia, understandable. The Cuban missile crisis in 1962 that threatened full scale global war, was produced by just such a move and to repeat it at least in principle, would be to court extending the war for no clear advantage.
Cuban Missile Crisis 1962 picture credit The Independent
When reaching any peace agreement, diplomats work so that all sides are able to ‘save face’ and some sort of compromise is usually involved.
It should be pointed out to Russia that ‘Special Military Operations’ are not able to gain territory because of their self defined limits of operations. In contrast it is ‘total war’ that annexes neighbouring sovereign states as demonstrated by the German Nazis in the second world war. Ironically, we are told that the original aims of Putin were to eliminate Nazi’s from Ukraine and this story has apparently been the reason why Russian citizens are supporting the invasion of Ukraine. The right wing Azov Regiment in Mariupol were rightly or wrongly set up as the objective for Putin’s SMO. But it is clear that the initial invasion of Ukraine by forces on it’s northern border ‘on exercise’, intended to go straight for Kiev, with the intention of taking over the government.
Fundamentally, the two leaders are entrenched, literally and metaphorically over the old or a new Ukraine border. Therefore, I suggest that both sides should forget resolving their border claims at the present time. Instead, the regions under dispute and their populations, should be placed under the protection of a neutral organisation. There will be a promise and expectation to the citizens who live in those areas that in five years time they will be able to vote in a referendum to decide which country has sovereignty in their region. Immigration of citizens from both countries will have to be based on legal ownership of land and property otherwise illegal settlements will spring up as in Palestine!
Since Russia has already shown it’s willingness to abide by referendums over sovereigty, I would hope that Ukraine agrees to the plan. The delay of five years will allow genuine refugees to return to their homes, local and global economies and social services to ‘normalise’ and some stability to return to the regions. It might take ten or twenty years but this can be decided in the intitial negotiations over the agreement. Ultimately people will be able to vote for the system of government they prefer.
A note of caution when advocating referendums. They can be used to advantage as Putin has already shown. He has a precedent as also Adolf Hitler favoured using rigged, manipulated referendums (plebiscites) to provide a facade of democratic legitimacy to his dictatorship.
On the other hand, U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher disliked referendums calling them “a device of dictators and demagogues”. But she did submit to a referendum to decide whether the United Kingdom should join the European Economic Community in 1975.
picture credit El Periodico UK Brexit
With this in mind, one should therefore treat referedums as carefully as unexploded ordance; the outcome can hurt! After a referendum result there might be left a substantial minority of disgruntled citizens for whom the outcome did not go their way. We saw this in the 2026 UK referendum over the question of whether to stay in the European Union. The result was narrowly in favour of leaving, a view that has reversed itself since. To avoid division and future instability, I suggest that a super majority is required of two thirds of the population before any result becomes law. The 50/50 referendum rule over Brexit was not open to public consultation. Brexit has illustrated however, that a large minority of disgruntled voters become considerably more political astute and active than a contended small majority and the same could occurr in the disputed Ukrainian territories.
To overcome perpetual border disputes, after a referendum has taken place, those uncomfortable with the outcome could be given the opportunity to move, together with generous compensation from Russia; what one might call ‘special military compensation’. Ukrainians could move to new Ukraine and Russian speaking Ukrainians who support the Putin regime could move to Russia.
Here is a long bamboo and here is a short one Ts’ui-wei Zen Master
Many western thinkers find it difficult to understand that war and peace are the same. This is because in dualistic thinking there are only two ‘opposite’ words to describe a broader thing for which there is no single word. This dualism and is a clear example of how words determine thoughts, in the same way that roads define journeys.
Consider this koan; when there is no war and no peace, what is there?
In order to construct a bridge that combines the extremes of ‘war ‘ and ‘peace’, one needs to use a phrase which is a paradox; a statement that contradicts itself. The concept of ‘soft war’ for instance, opens a whole new spectrum of possibilities around the ideas of ‘non-violence’. War has historically been the option used by humans to solve disagreements between ‘tribes’. At a higher level of consciousness however, it is possible to achieve the same ends without firing a single arrow. So let us look more closely at this paradox.
I propose a definition of soft war as, ‘the acquisition of state assets and benefits by peaceful means.’ Because surely, state violence as a means to an end should be far behind us in this twenty first century. Nobody has ever really won a war, when you study world history.
Presently, various state players are heading off to the moon. The initial batch of astronauts will need to be real estate agents, taking photographs and writing up a hot and cold, air-less deserted blob, as enticingly as they can for prospective nation clients.
Donald Trump pronounced publicly the creation of the United States Space Force as a department of the Air Force when he was President. Apart from the odd logic of the Air Force fighting in places with no air, one intention is clearly to use violence to acquire lunar assets and benefits for the United States of America. At least this time round there will be no natives and Buffalo to slaughter; assuming they are not hiding on the far side of the moon.
Will a World Space Peace Treaty be conceived before star wars break out?
There is some optomism in the idea that many people no longer believe in using violence to solve problems. An example of this common sense are the students presently demonstrating on the lawns of Columbia University in New York, in sympathy with the oppressed Palestinian people. The compelling argument for such a new vision is that when war became ‘industrial’, it became toxic; nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical.
Loving life and hating killing machines does not imply hating any particular racial or religious group as some oponents argue.
In the sixteenth century soldiers used to dress up in smart uniforms, line up in ranks or ships and shoot each other. Nasty but consensual. Since the ‘industrial’ methods of war emerged in the twentieth century, the victims of war largely became non-consensual civilians. Whole cities were flattened without recourse to any apparent ethical imperative and since it’s use in the second World War, this tactic has been repeated in countries like Vietnam, Lybia, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and now Gaza. Industrial War uses attrition of the civilian population as a means to an end. I will suggest somewhat optimistically, that these examples are the last batch of evil against humanity by humanity. Because there is an alternative and it is called ‘soft war’.
Peace does not mean peace. In ‘peacetime’ some level of pan national aggression is taking place but in secret. Most States use this means in ‘peacetime’ to subvert other States. After the second World War this was called a ‘Cold War’. In the USSR long term strategies were initiated to acquire more States. This I describe in my blog called ‘The World is Spinning Out of Control’ published on 14th December 2022. To save you looking back,
I list the Soviet’s four stages of this process from ‘demoralisation’ to ‘destabilisation’ to ‘crisis’ to ‘normalisation’. In the 2020’s we are well into the ‘crisis’ era. Putin’s Russia in my view is just the USSR Lite.
For those who think the recent Covid 19 Sars 2 pandemic was a spontaneous health crisis, hopefully they have modified their view based on the hindsight of the evidence since then. I strongly believe the pandemic was a dress rehearsal in which future governments control populations against their will. China displayed this more blatantly than most other countries because that is what communism is good at. If you wonder why free thinking democracies used ‘lock down’ and ‘tracking’ contrary to their sacred principle personal freedom, we need to think beyond the official simplified narrative.
Control by governments of their citizens historically, used to be by the threat of force (Iran and other autocracies excepted) but there are more subtle althernatives. Money has always ‘made the world go round’ and soft war uses money as a primary tool. The application of sanctions by one nation over another is a slow process that puts pressure on populations long before governments are persuaded to change an offending policy. Presently all eyes are on digital currencies. As they transfer the power of purchase from governments to individuals, many state leaders are preparing national digital currencies. Once governments acquire control of their own population’s money, they are all powerful. No money, no dinner.
There are many other ways to bring populations to ‘crisis’ and it is happening now in ever increasing degrees. China is producing chemicals that make artificial opioids and flooding America with fentanyl; something the CCCP deny. Vast numbers of America citizens are now addicted to fentanyl. This drug is so harmful that President Biden has just signed off a law called the ‘Fend Off Fentanyl Act’.
‘Drugs and Alcohol’ because alcohol is not a drug – really?
Covertly undermining the health-hospitals-production-tax revenue, of nations using viruses and addictive harmful drugs is a clear example of ‘soft war’. In a liberal society, public safety measures and permitting populations the freedom to experience pleasure from drugs (legalising cannabis for instance), might be welcomed but the reality is frightening.
Even prescribed drugs can have a similar effect if delivered in large enough quantities, such as in a pandemic. ‘Excess deaths’ in the nations who licenced untested mRNA vaccines, have been inexplicably and worryingly high since 2020. Governments are not looking too deeply into why this has happened which raises a natural suspicion of what was really going on and why.
These are both perfect examples of ‘soft war’. In psychological terms they are ‘passive aggressive’ techniques producing a collective irrational fear of a problem such as disease. Humans are easy to ‘destabilise’ from their preferred condition of ‘tranquillity’ because we are not good at thinking. If we were, why would we ever put on a uniform and go off the commit a genocidal war, as thousands of Israeli’s are doing at this time? They who were the ‘prisoners’ in Nazi Germany are now the ‘guards’ in what they have left of Palestine. And if you do not understand this reference have a look at the ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ on Wikipedia. Humans are easy to manipulate so that they think they are doing good when the opposite is the case. Not only the victims are manipulated but the oppressors too. The snake chases it’s tail.
The growing phenomenon of mass movements of refugees and economic migrants by legal and illegal means, is impossible to control. Mass movement of people over open borders into populations that are not welcoming, is both the product of complex factors such as climate change and, one must suspect, deliberate crisis creation to subvert sovereign states. The sight of governments arguing vehemently over migration such as within the European Union, brings much satisfaction to those who desire to covertly divide and conquer.
Who could be doing this? Well, The World Economic Forum for instance are notorious for stating ‘you will own nothing and you will be happy’. The clue is in their title…’World’. The World Health Organisation has likewise produced a plan that takes away a sovereign states right to decide how to protect the health of their own populations in a pandemic. The WHO will make the decisions for them;
“Member States of the World Health Organization have agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” source: WHO website posting 23 June 2023
These and other soft war players do indeed have the world in their sights. Events such as climate change and the destruction of eco-systems worldwide will enable gaining assets and benefits of self serving ‘entities’, by non-violent means. Clearly, blaming the apparently uncontrollable ( such as ‘nature’ ) is a convincing way of cloaking covert methods of destabilising nation states. Despite well meaning conservation projects, humans have never intended to protect nature and it’s processes that support life on earth. If they had, action would have been taking place to stop it decades ago, in the same way that tobacco companies would have stopped selling cigarettes decades ago, if they had wanted to.
At the centre of all this complexity is the individual human. How can they be expected to understand the deep state and hidden cabals. Most humans are well behind the future curve of our species preferring life as it is. The ‘activist’ minority are also prey to covert manipulation. Instead of raising the roof to stop being cynically manipulated, activist groups, for instance, protest against the slavery of the nineteenth century, whilst ignoring modern slavery. There are those who complain against the loss of ‘black lives’ in the USA, whilst ignoring the supply of American made weapons and the killing of thousands in Haiti, on America’s doorstep. In fact there are racially predudicially discriminationing inspired genocides and pogroms all around the world in present time. But our anger against these is re-directed towards historical injustice and horrors, like the holocaust. History is as an oppurtunity to learn and forgive if we wish to keep our sanity. I cannot be responsible for the sins of my father, only my own.
Such shingle issue civil rights campaigners may not be fully aware of who has started and funded their organisations and what the true motives of their benefactors are. ‘Destabilisation’ and ‘crisis’ are easily achieved by creating well meaning protest movements that actual don’t make sense when the right questions are asked. Investigative journalists used to cover these stories but today their editors pull their punches and a good question is ‘why’?
It is apparently all to easy to get into the heads and their hearts of people and this is the most subtle and worrying aspect of soft war. As Artificial Intelligence looms menacingly, waiting to take over from heart centred humans, humans need to keep strict intellectual, rule based, control. War is increasingly being delivered by anonymous robots such as drones and unpiloted aircraft, in order that no service personnel are hurt and responsibility can be denied.
In a non-ethical, world ‘robot wars’ could be seen as the summit of success by those who believe violence within a species justifies the end.
And yet, ‘ethical concerns’ can ironically also become a cloak to disguise the overpowering of other states by non-violent means. China has displayed a mastery of this over the recent decades. It has used it’s massive wealth to enter foreign countries in Africa and around the world, offering to construct major infrastructure and lending poor nations the money to do it. When the port or whatever is completed, after a while, the other country finds it cannot repay the interest on the loan. China then offers to purchase the port or other project and completes it’s own agenda of using the port for commercial and military dominance.
This process has the same effect of acquiring the assets and benefits of another country in an apparently benign way. Indeed, it might be ethical if China did not ultimately intend to use these assets for military purposes. Looking at the size and sophistication of the Chinese Air, Land, Sea and Space Forces, it becomes obvious that such force will one day be used in offence.
Chinese Expansion picture credit: Research Gate
Russia is expanding (against ‘genocide in Georgia’ and ‘Nazis’ in Ukraine so all ‘legal’) in the same way. Their sights are also on the last great continent to be developed, Africa. By implanting mercenaries and aid into African countries to stabilised them. They are welcomed as many such as have become disillusioned with help from other states such as in French ex-colonies, like Niger.
War has not yet been perceived as moribund. In the same way that Chinese Shaolin monks learn martial arts that are completely ineffective against any firearm, so modern states display out of date weapons in their annual parades. Even the mighty aircraft carriers require a fleet to defend them from innovative methods of attack such as supersonic cruise missiles. The loss of a carrier to any nation would be catastrophe and their production and use, certainly under an ‘America First’ government, is a paper dragon. It is not likely to frighten those who know all about dragons.
Can we conclude that neither open violence nor passive aggression are acceptable in an peaceful world? The alternative was conceived by such historical world leaders as Mahatma Gandhi; to simply use the protest power of the people to alter harmful government policies.
In my view what is needed to stabilise human society before it spins out of control, is an axis of ethical commitment that is so strong it will prevent the world from wobbling. What that will be, we await to see but I expect it will involve, people centred leadership and a universal, spiritually inspired set of values.
The situation in the Middle East is spiralling out of control. The question leaders would do well to ask their advisers is ‘how do we de-escalate?’
The attack on the Iranian Diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, was almost certainly the work of the Israeli’s. They have not confirmed or denied this, probably because such an attack was not ‘self defence’ by any definition; unless ‘kill all your enemies’ is now defined as such.
The effect however, was to stir up the sleeping bear called Iran and it’s proxies. Why Israel wanted to do this is for them to answer.
Iran have retaliated a few days ago, with a demonstration of their ability to overwhelm Israeli air defences with decoy drones and missiles of various types. Naively, Israel thinks this was not just domestic crowd pleasing and sabre rattling, but a full on attack that they heroically repelled. This self congratulation is another indication of Israel getting it wrong. If nothing else, compare the costs of a drone and a missile to down it and simple arithmetic tells you that Israel could not defend itself against any repeated daily attacks from Iran. Not if your income is from tourism and oranges.
Israels next move might be another ‘retaliation’, thus sustaining a deadly game of international ping pong.
The situation is absurd.
The beginning of this conflict goes way back into the sands of time; even before the creation of Israel after the second world war by the Allies. The intention then was to create a pro-West fortress in the Middle East; particularly for protection of the Suez Canal. This was characterised as love and compassion for secular Zionist and religious Orthodox Israeli’s, after their attempted genocide in the second world war.
If you ask a class of Palestinian school children to write an essay on all the good things Israel has done for them and their families, they might be sucking on their pencils more than writing.
Love and compassion towards your neighbours has not been in Israel’s strategy book. So if the present government of Israel want to know what has caused so much hatred towards it’s people, the lack of love and compassion towards it’s neighbouring States since 1948, has to be at the top of the list.
So how should Israel proceed? In my essay entitled ‘Shalom, Salaam, Peace’ published on this site on 22 October 23 and written a week earlier, I cited the need for a proportionate response to the attack on Israel by Hammas on 7th October 23.
I said that the best tactic for Israel, was to send it’s Special Forces into Gaza to clear the buildings of Hammas fighters one by one. This would have protected innocent civilians and preserved the infrastructure for future habitation.
We know the opposite has happened.
It is not too late for the Netenyahu government to look back and remember what it’s stated aims are in this war. Number one is to get back the hostages taken by Hammas on 7th October and number two is to destroy Hammas.
I believe Israel now needs to forget about provoking Iran and focus on it’s original aims.
The Israeli Defence Force has shown itself to be the third rate Army described in my earlier essay and this is why so many civilians and so few Hammas fighters have been killed. Hostages have not featured in daily fighting except when IDF soldiers shot three waving a white flag.
Now would be a good time for the IDF to ask for support from Israel’s allies. Let us say there are five western countries prepared to send in one hundred Special Forces troops each; specialising in hostage retrieval. These can then start at one end of Gaza and using Intelligence led tactics, move through every building and tunnel until they reach the other side of Gaza. They will find hostages on the way and safely return them to Israel. The IDF could be used in a supporting role to occupy strategic positions as they are taken, stopping Hammas from filling up the vacuum.
The medieval siege tactics against civilians could end and urgent supplies allowed to pass into Gaza whilst this operation is taking place.
Clearing a city in this way is far safer than bombing it. The IDF have been fighting through rubble at an enemy that has had time to prepare defensive positions. An impossible task, even for competent soldiers.
Getting out the hostages is an achievable aim, destroying Hammas is not. Unfortunately, Israel chose a fight it could not win because small terrorist organisations such as Hammas, ISIS and Al Qaeda retreat and pop up somewhere else. Killing innocents, is the best way of recruiting enemies. Tragically, this is one of the few things the IDF have been good at.
Once the hostage aim has been achieved and a new government has been installed in Gaza, replacing Hammas and other organisations such as the Palestine Liberation Organisation; it will be possible to form new aims. This will hopefully be under a new Israeli government (with the present one under investigation for war crimes and historical allegations from before the war).
With support from other countries Israel, could aim to build a harmonious relationship with Palestine and it’s people. Until this is achieved, no participant in the present chaos, will know why it is doing what it is doing.
There is a tradition in England to bake special buns at the end of the Christian period of Lent. These are characterised by a white cross symbolising the cross on which, they believe, Jesus the Christ was crucified.
We are familiar with one of the meanings of the word cross is ‘annoyance’. Insignificant in itself but keep it in mind as you read on.
When I was a young student of architecture in London, we had lectures on the philosophy of architecture. I was greatly influenced by an American anthropologist named John Steel, whose philosophy of life in general appeared innovative and exciting to me. He said, for instance, that we should be wary of using right angles in our designs. He sited the geometry of astrology where an angle of 90 degrees indicates a clash, as does 180 degrees. In contrast, the angles of 60 and 120 degrees are harmonious.
I set about designing with architectural plans based on equilateral triangles. Other tutors cited the work of the great American architect Frank Llyod Wright who used this grid extensively. His buildings are greatly valued today for their harmonious relationship with nature and an ambience of content.
In the Chinese order of landscape and building design known as Feng Shui, the corner created by a right angle is called a ‘poisoned arrow’ and needs careful mitigation.
What this is leading up to is an invitation to consider the universal symbol of the cross; two lines that cross each other at right angles. It might be that it is not so benign a symbol after all; if only because it is a depiction of the causing extreme death of a human being.
The symbol of the cross is of course far older than Christianity, whether on the diagonal, vertical or the many other variations.
We should also remember the variation of the spinning cross known as the Swastika and it’s modern association with Facism. The spinning cross was a symbol of the sun for ancient cultures all over world. The Nazi’s reversed it’s direction in a doubtless, intentional Satanic reference because they studied and practiced spirituality for it’s power.
Jesus the Christ called himself ‘the light of the world’ and ‘the son of God’; but we rely on translations for this and it is possible that he came as the solar deity whom the ancient Greeks named Appollo. If modern day Christians are uncomfortable with this association then they are invited to read deeper into this subject.
Whether or not any of the above is absolutely true or relevent is not my thesis. Suffice to say that the crossing of straight lines is generally, a male and solar symbol.
Historically, much of mankind’s evolution over the last millenia, has been male or solar in character and I would argue that it is natural we would expect history to be filled with accounts of male humans fighting; war, opposition.
What was desperate to happen, in terms of human evolution, was the rise of the complimentary feminine principle known as the Divine Feminine. For we are not so bound by our religious dogmas today as to deny that God is equally female and male. The old stereo type of a white bearded ‘nice guy’ needs to be put into the ‘no longer believable box’. Humans were made in the image of the Divine male and the Divine female. Their physical bodies hold more in common than difference meaning the two genders have more in common than difference and are complementary in nature.
The power and relevance of the divine feminine appears in ancient Egypt. Their pantheon is a full of female gods as well as male. Isis and Osiris almost share the same name and are depicted, just as Mary and Joseph, with a divine child from their union.
This balanced recognition of Divinity as a whole ‘yin and yang’ complimentaryness should have informed all of human endeavour to the present day but sadly, the alpha-male energy jumped ahead of the game.
There were exponents of this Divine androgeny based on ancient Egyptian texts, the Greek Cabala and Jewish Cabala and Hermiticism, but they had to operate as a secret society. They were the Rosicrucians whose symbol was a vertical cross with a rose at it’s centre. The meaning is clear; that of a combination of male and female Divine energies forming a Unity.
At a similar time came another religion based on the house of Abraham, Islam. Whilst today many Islamic cultural dogmas (such as dress codes) are based on tribe and tradition. In countries like Iran, enforcement of dress codes if enforced more for male power than to solve any problem. Early Islam was a beacon of feminine influence in society at many levels such as architecture and art. Sufi poets aspired loving feelings towards a soft and nuturing, Creator. Islamic architecture is renowned for it’s flowing depictions of nature and it’s geometric patterns. Courtyards and landscapes were intended as earthly depictions of paradise and were characterised by soft flowing waters and fountains. The contemplative, reflecting, geometric ponds in the Alhambra Palace and castle in Spain, were invitations for reflection and enjoying the solar heat from the cool embrace of shadowed courtyards.
Islam was and is, fundamentally, a lunar religion, still represented today by it’s use of the lunar rather than the solar calendar and it’s use of the crescent moon as a symbol.
This ‘feminine principle’ was carried by returning crusaders and travelling troubadours to the Christian Europe as chivalry. Many of the Crusader knights learnt from Islam the importance of respecting women and the essence that women contained and expressed in enchanting, subtle ways. This sea change should not be underestimated as it continues to inform and revolutionise the feminine principle in modern societies; expressed as ‘feminism’ in modern politics but culturally is far more profound.
The ‘Round Table’ of King Arthur was a practical representation of the sharing of power amongst equals. This replaced the Alpha-male monarch of previous centuries who killed all who opposed him. The circle is a geometric form which expresses harmony and potential infinite expansion and/or introspection. It is a planet and a universe all at once and has none of the negative values associated with a cross. But most of all, it is the maternal womb and the expression of the greatest thing that the Divine Feminine has to offer; completion and life.
It is today, in many European and other progressive countries, that women have been given principle parts to play in the affairs of government and social order. Their plain speaking and intuitive understanding of complexity, is in contrast to the previous male dominated ways. As leaders they have become highly respected, such as Ursula Gertrud von de Leyen in the European parliament.
So may we this Spring season of renewal, view the ending of the male, solar dominated world (open to all to view across North America as a solar eclipse on 8th April 2024) and welcome those gifts that the Divine feminine brings to us in abundance; the natural world, procreation love and an end to those hot cross males!
The Solar Eclipse; a moment for feelings or fiesta?
At some point in it’s evolution, humanity has to decide whether to accept violence or not.
At present, it appears we accept violence within certain rules. We say that if you did not initiate the violence, then you can be violent towards the aggressor, to any degree. This is called ‘self defence’ and few can think of an alternative. But why should defence be more morally right than attack? Can either be justified? What is the difference, morally?
Suppose you were a citizen of the United States of America and you own a gun and know how to use it. You are woken in the middle of the night by a noise downstairs. You arm yourself and go down to investigate. You see a dark figure and shoot. At this moment you believe you are acting in self defence, as is your right. You switch on the lights and to your horror you see the body of your teenage son lying on the floor. He was creeping back into the house after a secret night drinking with his friends. This is not fiction. This happens.
Just because the law enables a gun to be the solution to your ‘problem’, was this the only solution? Were there other more proportionate actions you could have taken? Yes, you could have switched on the light before you shot at a higher risk to your own life, or you could have called the police. You could have just done nothing. Each approach is problematic but only one invites heart break.
I lived in a country where only specialist police carry guns, England. Good peace keepers should be skilled at talking down a potentially violent situation. It’s a technique and can be learnt. Now many officers carry a Taser non-lethal gun as well as non-lethal CS gas. Non-lethal is a practical half way to non-violence.
Between attack and defence there are a thousand grey variations. The best option is always somewhere between total war and total defence; not either or. Ultimately they both are characteristics of the same thing; violence.
Fortunately most sovereign countries do not attack each other and a state of peace exists. But we know that peace is a fragile situation, where historical, economic and political rivalry bubbles away under the surface like a dormant volcano. Violence has to be contained for peace to exist and this is created using ‘deterrence’. Joining forces with another group of nations is one method of deterring attack. Not being a threat is another and here we realise that it is impossible to deter another nation without them being scared of you. Russia is presently in this conundrum with it’s relationship to NATO countries.
We watched as Russia reached a tipping point and claimed that Ukraine had a Fascist army. Historically, the communists (Soviet Union) and fascists (Nazi Germany) were enemies and this history still clearly carries some import as ‘justification’. By fighting ‘fascists’ Putin possibly feels he has his predecessors moral high ground on his shoulder. Coupled with a perceived threat from an expanding NATO and Ukraine moving towards joining the European Union; Putin is clever though and he does not use the word ‘war’ or ‘attack’. He insists he is acting in ‘self defence’ to NATO’s growing threat and his military action is just a ‘special operation’.
Words are master deceivers and suit Putin well. Because two words, ‘attack’ and ‘defence’ are the same thing; a resort to violence is claimed to be justified.
Zionist politicians in Israel have more or less done the same thing. They have an historical antagonism towards the people of Palestine whom they have been squeezed into smaller and smaller enclaves. Any similarity between this and the Warsaw Ghetto in the Second World War is of course, purely coincidental. The question is whether Palestinian or Isaraeli fighters are defending their country by attacking their neighbour. Defence quickly escalates into violent action that can get wildly out of control. The question of ‘proportionate’ use of violence (an eye for an eye) is the current debate.
So how can non-violence ever replace violence? The answer is it probably can’t whilst humans are attached to a materialistic and territorial lifestyle which they guard with weapons. In this respect humans are less sophisticated morally than most animals who rarely fight their own species to the death.
We learn to deal with violent conflict as children in the school playground. When we become adults we are expected to rise above violence as a solution to problems.
Two boys start fighting in the playground. A huddle of eager spectators quickly forms around them. These bystanders are too immature to try to pull the boys apart and instead encourage them. A stronger third party with moral responsibility for order is required; a teacher.
The teacher breaks up the mob and marches the two boys off to the headmasters office.
‘He started it!’ is a common defence from children. Their false logic is that when attacked there is no other response than a defensive counter attack. There is usually an option to run.
If we change the scale of our example, to that of governments and countries, you will find that ‘he started it!’ is also used as a justification for the use of violence by sovereign states. Only a third party intervention from a body with higher moral and political authority has the power to stop and settle wars. After the horrors of the second world war the League of Nations and subsequently United Nations was created to step into this role. The objective voice of world opinion should, in theory, make the warring parties ‘see sense’ and the more mature aim of seeking a peaceful resolution.
The United Nations and the United States of America, could go to the preesnt Israeli Zionist government and point out that killing innocent women and children in Gaza is morally unjustifiable. Putin could be hauled into the headteacher’s office by the United Nations, but has not.
Mahatma Gandhi lead a nation using moral authority based on non-violence. He wanted the British to leave India and for Indian people to govern themselves. His tactics using moral discipline, diplomacy and example turned out to be more powerful than the military might of the British Raj.
War was described by Carl von Clausewitz as ‘ the extension of politics by other means.’ Personally, I would be more precise and describe war as the extension of politics by violent means. This creates the logical possibility that peace is the extension of politics by peaceful means.
Of course, peace is an abstract idea and never completely exists but there is a place close to total peace which might be reached using skilled, non-lethal force.
To use a personal example, when I was a boy at school, I never sought to fight. When I was inevitably confronted aggressively, I stepped forward, put my leg behind the thigh of the aggressor and pushed him to the ground. Yes, it was violent but it only hurt a bully’s pride.
This was the extension of politics by peaceful means, meaning no one was hurt. Later in life I came across Aikido. This an unusual martial art in that it enables winning a fight without confrontation. For this reason it requires no strength and is ideal for women and the elderly.
An interesting example was given me by one of the teachers. He was on an ice-rink when he felt a hand going into his pocket and pulling out his wallet. Instinctively he grabbed the wrist of the thief and continued the forward movement of the pickpocket’s body. The result was to send him rapidly across the ice rink. In Aikido, the art is to avoid conflict using simple non-aggressive moves that eventually tire out or restrain the opponent until help arrives or submission.
City dwellers would do well to learn the tactics of pickpockets even if they do not feel able to defend themselves physically. Usually they work in teams in crowded places and choose victims carefully. This is done by the ‘spotter’. Then the thief moves in using much the tactics of the illusionist in a theatre to distract and act deftly. Then a third party intervenes by preventing escape or creating another distraction.
Governments would do well to learn from these examples at a micro scale of conflict. Having a clear aim is vital to managing any violent unsolicited action. The method of conducting the conflict and ending it with minimum force and casualties for both attacker and defender and vital. Fast and deft military moves have time and time again proved their worth on battle fields.
When Napoleon wanted to teach the Zhar of Russia a lesson for breaking their pact of unity in 1812, he formed an army and headed for Moscow. Contrary to most other opponents Napoleon had fought, the Russians did not line up and wait to be shot or cut down by flanking cavalry. Instead they conducted an extraordinary retreat, burning everything in their wake. Only when Napoleon reached Moscow did they choose their moment to swiftly counter attack. Napoleon’s army fled in disarray and only 5% of the original army returned to France.
Sun Zhu in his famous book on military tactics said, ‘engage with the ordinary, win with the extraordinary’. A little side stepping and originality can nimbly avoid a cataclysmic confrontation like Ukraine v Russia. ‘Give some ground,’ is one solution.
Special forces, such as the British Commando’s came to the forefront of military tactics in the Second World War, where small teams of four men used guerilla tactics against an unprepared enemy. Casualties for the attacking side were minimal compared to strategic gain.
Ultimately the choice is not whether to attack or defend but to avoid unecessary violence by what ever means possible. There are always alternatives that require imagination and focused problem solving techniques in exactly the same way the animals avoid killing their own species. There is no ‘perfect’ state of non-aggression where humans in their present terratorial state of consciousness are concerned. Perhaps in the future, peace will break out and violence will never be the preferred problem solving option. In the words of , ‘what if there was a war and nobody came.’
“Ah! There is the rub.”
A Samurai was famous throughout his kingdom for his skill in battle and duels. This notoriety inevitably brought unwanted attention in the form of young swordsman. They were all eager to beat this Samurai and steal his fame and title.
One day the Samurai was on a large trading ship with a number of other passengers. As he stood staring at the water, he was approached by an impetuous young swordsman. He immediately challenged the Samurai to a duel amidst a string of insults. The Samurai looked him up and down and said he was busy. The young swordsman became more effusive so the Samurai agreed to a duel on an island they were passing. He told the young man to get into the small boat being towed by the ship and they would fight on the island. The swordsman immediately slipped down the rope and looked up expectantly. The Samurai cut the rope with his sword and the young man spun away in the wake of the ship.
Matters Blog 